MAGAR & RASTOGI

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Berman considered an application by the mother to set aside consent orders made on 20 September 2013. The mother alleged she was unable to understand the nature of those orders due to mental impairment and/or duress, while the father opposed her application. The court also addressed the mother's request for interim orders and the question of whether to bifurcate the proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the mother's application to set aside the consent orders had sufficient merit to proceed, and whether the proceedings should be bifurcated to address the setting aside of the orders separately from the determination of parenting orders. The mother, appearing by telephone with an interpreter, sought to strike out certain grounds from her own reply and dismiss interim orders, while also requesting production of her file from previous solicitors.

Justice Berman struck out specific grounds from the mother's reply, including allegations of "fraudulent violence, pressure and capacity," and dismissed her interim orders, noting the father's willingness to provide photographs and health updates of the child. The court declined to bifurcate the proceedings, finding that the mother's case, encompassing both the discharge of the 2013 orders and the making of new parenting orders, should be heard together. The court reasoned that bifurcation was not required at this stage and that the proceedings did not warrant expedition, directing that the matter be listed for trial directions before a Registrar. The mother was also ordered to request her former solicitors provide their file relating to her attendance in September 2013 and the provision of independent legal advice concerning the consent orders to the Independent Children's Lawyer for inspection by all parties.